Letter: Obamacare works for me

I’ve been self-employed for most of the last 15 years and have purchased my own health insurance. I’ve seen my insurance premiums rise steeply. Three years ago they went up 40 percent in one year. I kept increasing the deductible to lower the premium, and in the last few years I’ve had a $10,000 deductible. I considered dropping it many times to ease the financial strain. I’m in my 50s, and though I’m healthy it was hard to find a company that would even cover me. Overall, I’ve felt that as a consumer I have no power in that market. As the costs of health care itself have gone through the roof, I also had a very hard time getting prices from hospitals or labs to compare ahead of a test or procedure. I just had to pay the bills. Usually when you buy something, you can at least get an estimate for it.

Obamacare has initiatives to make health care work better for all of us – focusing more on prevention, coordinating care between a person’s providers to get better results for the cost, developing strong “primary care” and making it more fair for consumers in a system where corporate heavyweights have written the rules for too long. I’m extremely grateful to have better coverage at a price I can live with and hope that what seems like help for the few results in a better system for us all.

I am making nothing up Bruce. Cripes, they even have gone after nuns, The Sisters of The Poor. There are 92 cases pending against the ACA based on religious beliefs.
Nobody forces anybody to take a job where they do not like the benefits or the wages. Hobby Lobby employees have no issue with their benefits, or the work environment,

Bruce_Currie wrote:

04/05/2014

Hobby Lobby is not a religious institution, it's a corporation to which some would grant religious freedom rights, to go along with their recently acquired free speech rights. Under the protective cover of claiming to promote more democracy, the Roberts Court and the GOP are busy whittling away at laws that promote democracy and fairness. To see how far we've strayed from the Founders' original vision, consider this statement that could have been uttered by someone from the Occupy movement.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson, 1816

tillie wrote:

04/05/2014

Not being a lawyer or even being married to one, I don't really understand if the Court makes an exception for Hobby Lobby why not then for all corps that claim something is against their religious beliefs Like Muslims or Hindus or any corporation that wants to impose its' beliefs on their employees? How can they narrow the opinion to only Christian befiefs?

tillie wrote:

04/05/2014

Excuse me Rabbit, I meant beliefs.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/05/2014

Well Bruce, not a good analogy between Occupy and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson did not feel entitled and "owed" anything. Jefferson was a hard worker, for instance, not a "puppeteer". As far as we know, he did not abuse drugs and act uncontrollably. He did not harass people on the street and expect society to share their wealth with him. "Defiance" to the laws of our country. Hmmm....how many time has Obama ignored our laws or failed to enforce them? What do you think Jefferson would say about that. I am not sure if he would be more shocked by the Occupy crowd or the behavior of Obama. I might say though that a closer comparison between the Occupy crowd and Jefferson is how often they bathed.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

04/06/2014

It wasn't an analogy, it was a direct comparison of one particular statement. Any thoughts on the Jefferson quote itself, which was the point of my post? Or are you just having too much fun playing with the straw bales?

GWTW wrote:

04/06/2014

hmm..whats the difference between the NYT corporation writing a piece extolling the virtues of candidate "A"...and say Walmart taking out an ad extolling the virtues of candidate "B"???

Bruce_Currie wrote:

04/06/2014

Was that a serious question? The NYTimes is a journalistic enterprise that at least pretends to put the public interest first in its reporting and editorial work: Walmart? Not so much.

GWTW wrote:

04/06/2014

The NYTimes corporation has hundreds of thousands of times the political speech power of me....how is that fair or equal?

LetThemEatCake wrote:

04/11/2014

Becasue the NY Times doesn't get to vote, you do - that is the ultimate difference.

tillie wrote:

04/02/2014

What a ridiculous, uniformed post. What does the Pope have to do with an American for profit company? This company wants it both ways, to enjoy the benefits of the US without having to conform to the Constitution. You say if these employees don't like their benefits don't work there. Well I say if this company doesn't want to play by the rules take your money and open a church somewhere. What if Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay min wage, or have lunch breaks, or safety rules can they just ignore those too? Oh yes, HL doesn't seem to mind investing in companies that manufacture abortion drugs, or intrauterine devices. It is just their employees they want to control. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

GCarson wrote:

04/01/2014

One thing that no one has even touched on concerning Obamacare, is why some of these so called cancelled policies were cancelled. Many businesses found it would be cheaper for them to do away with the coverage and make the gov't and taxpayers to pick up the tab. There are 10 criteria that define what a policy must contain to be compliant. None of those 10 criteria are extreme by any means. Just anti ACA fear mongering.

GWTW wrote:

04/01/2014

they were cancelled because they were against the law...next question..

tillie wrote:

03/31/2014

Medicare D is as voluntary as the ACA. You pay a penalty if don't sign up for it and don't have other prescription coverage and try to sign up for it later. What other reason could Republicans be against all Americans having health care except for the fact that it is an Obama initiative?

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

04/07/2014

nobody is against health care - what you want is for others to pay for it.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/08/2014

You nailed it BPR, it is expensive and they want everyone to "chip in" and help pay for theirs.

LetThemEatCake wrote:

04/11/2014

Or to put it more succintly, we want those Wall Street babies who don't pay for any insurance and then leave us with the tab when they go to the ER to pay their "fair" share. Hoping you don't get hurt and not paying for insurance is why we're in this mess to begin with. And that includes those who lost their current "policies" that had little to no premium and hardly any coverage.

tillie wrote:

03/29/2014

Some posters on here seem to have very short memories. Maybe there are 6 Planned Parenthood clinics in NH, I haven't checked but if there are it is no thanks to Republicans. Just two years, O'Brien an his cronies in the legislature had put a hit list out on PP clinics and tried to limit access for contraception for women. They didn't get away with it that time, but they are waiting in the wings. Abortion clinics have all but been banned by trickery in Texas and Kansas. And ALEC and their followers have plans for the rest of the states. "War on religion, war on Christmas" right out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth to willing ears. Just like Obamacare, it is a propaganda war not truth.

tillie wrote:

03/28/2014

George W Bush had set a deadline of May 15, 2006 for signup for Medicare D. Wasn't working so well so he changed the deadline to December seven month later. I don't remember all this screaming from Repubs about changing laws and government involvement in health care so much. Guess it just depends on who the President is.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/30/2014

Thanks for the reminder. Medicare Part D had lots of glitches upon its rollout in 2005, though on a lesser scale than the ACA. The difference was that the states and the opposition party (the Democrats) supported the concept and worked to ease its implementation. They recognized that the program, despite its flaws, worked for the common good. Nowadays, Republicans either don't know what that is, or deny that it exists. Such a parcel of rogues.... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/13/steve-israel/medicare-part-d-and-obamacare-health-care-gov/

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/31/2014

http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/
July 29, 2013, Howard Dean: One major problem [with ObamaCare] is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them" And this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-medicaid-expansion-has-brought-h/

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/31/2014

What,you're not calling it death panel any more? As the rest of Dean's comments make plain, whether the ACA succeeds or fails is not dependent just on the cost control efforts of IPAB. Rahman Emanuel's brother is more optimistic. But Dean is right--fee for service model is on its way out--we'll be switching to an outcome--based model, like the Mayo Clinic. The ACA has some features like this--tying hospital payments to patient outcomes rather than mindless fee for service. BTW the ACA hit its target of 7million sign-ups. People will start to see the ACA in a more positive light. And the world did not come to an end. Sorry GOP. By November, when it's time to sign up again, there may be little for them to run against. Though I'm sure they'll try their best to make something up.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/01/2014

If I called it a Death Panel, you would call me a Carper, what is the difference. Let's face it, if a person is 85 and they need a transplant or an operation to improve their life, a bureaucrat will have the say as to whether they have lived too long and it is not cost effective. "Mr. Brown, you have had a great life but this would cost too much and younger people would have a better outcome, just take your morphine and leave the Earth".

RabbitNH wrote:

03/31/2014

Only one problemo Bruce, Medicare Part D was voluntary.
The only reason the Dems were against it was because it was a Bush initiive.

gsec92 wrote:

04/02/2014

Medicare part D is NOT a voluntary enrollment. If you do not choose it, you get penalized by having to wait till an open enrollment period and you never get the opportunity to get Medicare at all. How I know this is my stepson is disabled and in order for him to get Medicare, we had to enroll him in Medicare part D, or he would be prevented from ever getting Medicare. Please get your facts straight and keep them straight.

FearlessLdr wrote:

03/28/2014

While the idea behind the ACA ("Obamacare") is laudable, the execution of this new program has been an unmitigated disaster. It took some people months to sign up only to find that their local doctors/hospitals were not in the network, forcing patients to find new doctors. The reimbursement rates under Obamacare are laughable making Medicare/Medicaid rates look positively generous. The only way the Obamacare model can be successful is to ration healthcare as do some of the European models of which so many liberals/progressives/LMC voters are enamored.

Field-of-Ferns wrote:

03/28/2014

You understand that the reimbursement rates are set by private companies, right?

Bruce_Currie wrote:

04/01/2014

Newsflash: we ration in this country by income, by employment, by race and ethnic group, by region, by hospital, by government, by insurance company.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/27/2014

Nice letter. It's past time for the Democrats to fight back against the lies, stalling tactics and obstructionism they've used in many states to prevent the ACA from being successful in its implementation. Fact-checking on the claims of those alleged victims of Obamacare that the Koch brothers are running under the banner of Americans for Prosperity [sic] is essential--they should be challenged daily with the facts. The Kochs and their minions are determined to outspend the Democrats and buy their seats in Congress. Accurate, truthful information that is accessible and straightforward in response is the only way to fight the Koch network of fear-mongering and lies.

RabbitNH wrote:

03/27/2014

Comment removed

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/27/2014

"The millions that have lost their docs and hospitals"? Seriously? I know you will find this shocking and hard to believe, but maybe those Tea Party ads aren't providing the whole picture. You're right about one thing though--sometimes "desperation does warp one's mind and takes away clear thinking and common sense." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/24/more-obamacare-horror-stories-do-they-add-up/

GWTW wrote:

03/27/2014

from what I have read...30 million will still be uninsured...

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/27/2014

Real cases? I know about 12 of them. I also know that folks I have worked with are now paying twice their usual premium, double and triple the deductibles so that something like 700,000 people who did not have insurance can be subsidized. Well, most of us are sick and tired of subsidizing others through out hard labor. Millions have lost their doctors and Obamacare is a law that was passed in a sleazy way and it is not going to make health care affordable. It is health care redistribution.

FearlessLdr wrote:

03/28/2014

Bruce, just try using your Obamacare at Concord Hospital...

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/27/2014

It is past time that Democrats and the extreme progressives (Socialists) on this site started to show some intellectual honesty. The only stalling is on the part of Obama, changing the law at his whim, such as deadlines. The truth about Obamacare is that it is health care redistribution, inconveniencing 250,000,000 Americans to have 700,000 (actual NEW signups that did not have health care before, see CBO) get freebie subsidies. It sucks, let's put it that way and I hope and pray that it fails as I am tired of paying for everyone else and progressives telling others that they are "selfish" because they don't want to pick up the slack of others. If you want to pay others health insurance, go right ahead. You will see later this year that you folks have gone too far, and I hope that you pay the price........

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/30/2014

Your post is a measure of how lame and weak are all your claims regarding the ACA. Here, you're repeating nonsense you've already been schooled on at least twice before. The Supreme Court decision of Heckler v Cheney gives the Executive branch wide latitude to postpone deadlines. It's a routine part of policy implementation. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities."

GWTW wrote:

03/30/2014

the 38th time Obamacare has been changed just happened this week. They extended the sign up- date....right after they said there wouldnt be an extension...because...the law wouldnt allow it.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/31/2014

Extended it for those already in process--as seems only fair under any circumstances. But as we well know, fair isn't in a Carper's vocabulary.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/01/2014

Merriam Webster defines fair as: "treating people in a way that does not favor some over others". You think that everyone should have an exact equal outcome. That is impractical as the human sprirt in that case would be crushed and people would live to serve, well, the state. You would have the old Soviet Union under your definition of "fair". You see inequity around every corner. All men and women are born equal but not all outcomes are equal, that is what you call 'life'.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

04/01/2014

No, you're constructing a straw man based on words I've never said. I don't expect nor ask for equal outcomes. But you're confusing fair and equal. It isn't fair that everyone, from the lowest wage earner to David Koch pay the same percentage of their income in taxes. That's why we have long had a progressive tax structure, in which those who earn more, pay a higher percentage in taxes. And that's also why, in the past, we've taxed certain kinds of income--such as from dividends, differently as well. And stop and think: not everyone is "born equal". Some of us are born with advantages that others never get to experience. The measures I seek--such as universal health care so that (for instance) mothers to be get good prenatal care--are measures designed so that children born of poverty have a better, fairer chance at achieving their dreams--closer to the same chances as the child born of wealthy parents. For 3 decades, we've been backsliding on that promise of equal opportunity, as the disparities between rich and poor grow wider, and one's chances for success depend ever more on whether you chose your parents wisely before being born.

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

03/26/2014

One may indeed get a subsidy but one gives up self esteem knowing that they have been unable to live by a major life rule of being self reliant. I wonder what Davie Crockett or Danial Boone would say about today's liberal cradle to grave govt reliant sector of society

Field-of-Ferns wrote:

03/26/2014

Are all of the multi-million dollar corporations that are getting federal subsidies (at taxpayer expense) giving up their self esteem? Are they being self-reliant? No one who is working to support themselves or their families should feel embarrassed to accept subsidy for health care, any more than they should feel embarrassed to accept public education, public safety, national defense, or public road plowing. Universal access to primary and preventive care (as opposed to emergency care) should be considered a hallmark of civilized society, and it should be supported by taxation, just like all of those other hallmarks of civilized society.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/26/2014

Good, please double your income tax payment to pay for that hallmark. In a civilized society we also should not have fetuses being used as fuel to warm hospitals in Great Britain. Morality is being replaced by social engineering.

Field-of-Ferns wrote:

03/27/2014

Obamacare is in place. The subsidies are tax-payer funded, and yet my income tax bill has not gone up in any significant way. And you and I both know that singe-payer health care would not double our income taxes. As far as what Great Britain may or may not be doing.... what does that have to do with Obamacare? Progress toward civil society is taken one step at a time. If you hold out on implementing progress until everything has been solved, you will never progress. (And holding back on single-payer until another country changes its ways is blatently riduculous.)

GCarson wrote:

04/01/2014

And just what does this have to do with anything. You certainly are not one to talk about morality, you have a convenient idea of what that is.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/01/2014

Morality? Well progressives are meta ethical, moral relativists. They don't believe in morality as it stands in history or in any basis of faith, belief in something bigger. Progressives use "tolerance" in all things moral. If they had their way, murder might be accepted in the future. Something like abortion is rubber stamped because of this kind of moral relativism. Cheating on your husband or wife might be acceptable with a "so what". Morality to me is doing the right things because they are the right things to do. Morality is about respect for others and respect for others in another topic which progressives find "relative'. But morality is heavily related to sexual conduct and that is the sticking point that rules many lives and is decaying our country by glamorizing Hollywood types, reality shows, etc. Treating someone well and respecting them as a human being is slowly declining.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/27/2014

I'm not sure Davey Crockett would be the best one to ask, given that he died defending racist slave-holders who were intent on stealing land claimed by another country, and fomented a bloody and senseless war to get their way. You need to get past the Walt Disney version of history: "Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier." Yeah, right.

RabbitNH wrote:

03/27/2014

Well Bruce, if you had been in charge from the beginning, we would still be a British Colony.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/27/2014

Then we'd have a much better health care system. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/most-efficient-healthcare_n_3825477.html

tillie wrote:

03/25/2014

Every single November when I still had employer insurance, we would get a letter fro the company saying they were holding costs down, blah , blah and every years our cost would go up and deductible would too. Nowadays the insurance companies still do it only now they can blame Obamacare for it.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/23/2014

Entrepreneurs understand that the freedom of owning their own business and paying their own way means that no one is providing health care or health insurance for them. That is one of the trade offs. People who make other choices in life should not depend on their neighbors to subsidize those choices.

RabbitNH wrote:

03/22/2014

Fear mongering, right out of the Harry Reid Handbook.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/22/2014

Yes, correct RabbitNH, not only Harry Reid though. Back alley abortion innuendos, seniors eating dog food (I guess that they don't know that tuna is often 5 cans for $1 and dog food is .99 cents a can), granny being pushed off of the cliff, seniors having to choose between food and medicine. They fear monger constantly but with Obanacare there is enough hard evidence that it is negatively impacting millions, the Veritas comment is anecdotal, not universal.

Field-of-Ferns wrote:

03/25/2014

The only one bringing up those things here seems to be you. There's no fear mongering in this letter.

tillie wrote:

03/25/2014

Please, please Itsa, forget all our past problems and tell me where I can buy five cans of tuna for a dollar. It would even be worth the gas to go there.

Typo explained and accepted. However, YOU are the only one talking about dog food here, and trying to say you're quoting the fear-mongering liberals. Nobody's claiming seniors will have to eat dog food. And wasn't it a prominent Republican who claimed that granny was going to get unplugged? Or pushed off a cliff, as you put it?

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/27/2014

For years Democrats have used the red herring argument that seniors have to choose between dog food and medication, etc. Democrats had Paul Ryan pushing granny off of the cliff, by the way.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/27/2014

Fear-mongering? Where in the letter? The only 'fear-mongering" has been done by the right, and it's mostly empty rhetoric, devoid of facts: "death-panels" for starters. A number of red states are working hard to limit access to contraceptives, health care and abortion for the poor--Texas foremost. That's not fear-mongering--it's fact. Religious rights for corporations may be next, allowing companies to deny coverage for contraception. Whose rights are being protected, and at what cost? Whose rights are being trampled? Who will be hurt in the long run?

RabbitNH wrote:

03/27/2014

You like to play the semantics game Bruce. The IPAB is not a Death Panel, it just is a panel that decides when health care costs get too high what will be cut as far as care. Not the same as rationing right.
That is what the left does. It is not rationing, it is controlling costs.
They change the meaning of words to distract from what is really going on.
Funny too, because the left is all about choice, yet they want the govt to make that choice for them. I am still waiting for the explanation from the left about why folks believe the govt knows best. Their history of implementing anything seems to speak for itself. The ACA is now the Poster Child for how the feds manage anything.
All about Semantics. And the acceptance that you cannot manage your life.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/27/2014

Your response is puzzling and evasive, to say the least. Betsy McCaughey, who originated the phony "death panels" claim, is lionized by the far right. In fact she was recently here in NH, making the Groksters and their ilk ecstatic. That fraudulent claim is a clear example of fear-mongering from the right about the ACA. And you just blithely excuse it, and go off on another incoherent rant.

Patty wrote:

03/28/2014

She's also the person who claimed that the ACA would, and I quote, "question your sex life," earning herself a Pants on Fire rating from PolitiFact.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/28/2014

It's the same people--many of them self proclaimed 'libertarians', who see nothing wrong with corporations that will in fact "question your sex life" if the Hobby Lobby case is decided in their favor. It's long been a deliberate strategy to sow confusion, doubt and fear about the ACA. Just as was done with cigarettes a generation ago, and is being done with climate change and public education by the same cast of oligarchs. In this case, put out enough misleading and outright false claims, goes the thinking by the Koch-led, astro-turfing Tea Party group mis-named "Americans for Prosperity", and we can get take over Congress and get the ACA repealed.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/27/2014

Government bureaucrats deciding if a person does or does not get end of life, last ditch health care that may or may not save your life IS a "life or death panel". Abortion was promised not to be in any Democrat health care bill but sneakily it is now being pushed. Contraception costs pennies and fear mongering like "back alley abortion will become commonplace" is a canard. If I don't believe in paying for abortion through my company, I should not have to, it is elective surgery. Honestly, I believe it is a woman's choice but it would be my choice to not pay for anothers moment of bliss. Sorry to put it so bluntly but intercourse is a choice, not a necessity. If you play you pay, not me. Wal-Mart has four of the most popular birth control (prescriptions) pills for less than $10. If you can afford to get your nails done, new outfits, cigarettes, etc. you can afford $10. This is not an emotional argument, it is common sense. If you get pregnant, knowing that you did not take precautions, well, control yourself!!! At some level, folks need to take some responsibility for their actions.

RabbitNH wrote:

03/28/2014

Evidently Itsa, like voter ID, we have all these poor folks who cannot get to WalMart, or Planned Parenthood to get BC.
Don't you remember all those folks who have no ID that were trotted out on the liberal media channels. I am sure they will trot out all the folks who do not have access to BC for us to see.
Oh, wait, they did not trot anybody out that had no ID, now that I think of it.
Could it be that these folks do not exist?

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/01/2014

How is Obamacare going to provide care for all of those people who don't have ID's. If they don't have an ID how are they going to file their income taxes and cash the check for their refunds and if it is direct deposited, they had to have an ID to open the account. Moreover, if they pass on Obamacare, without identification, how are we going to know who to fine? PP and birth control are choices, an expression of indidual freedom to make that choice. Why is that not good enough for progressives when it comes to overall health choice?

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/28/2014

Ah the mantra of 'personal responsibility' again. Last I checked, Walmart associates weren't writing prescriptions for birth control, but maybe I went to the wrong Walmart. Do you get your prostate exams and colonoscopies there, also? Bend over for low, low prices everyday. The Hobby Lobby issue is not just about abortion, it's about contraception--corporations telling their employees about what kind of family planning is permitted, or rather, that most kinds aren't. They would deny their employees access to birth control because that's what they "believe" and their employees, whether they share those beliefs or not, will either have to make other arrangements, or get another job. You evidently have no trouble with corporations meddling in the personal affairs of their employees--but oppose the government trying to level the playing field for everyone. You who rant on other threads about unwed mothers and minimum wage workers with kids want to have it both ways. You would deny people access to healthcare by your refusal to support the ACA--regular physician visits where family planning can be one of the discussions, and also restrict access to abortion when birth control fails or is inadequate. Access to family planning services reduces the abortion rate--that's a fact. It's also a fact that for quite some time "faceless bureaucrats" in insurance companies have been denying coverage for treatment--nothing is changing there. Nor has anything changed in your own screed if you're still claiming that "death panels" exist. It was the lie of the year in 2009. And some people are still telling it.

RabbitNH wrote:

03/29/2014

Last time I checked Bruce, there were 6 Planned Parenthoods in NH. Women have access to BC here.
Dictating that religious beliefs should be changed is going too far. You are asking folks and religions to change their tenets.
That is where progressives cross the line. That basically is a War On Religion.
Again we have choice, but Progressives dismiss choice unless it is in regards to social issues.
You folks are famous for stating, "If you against abortion don't have one"
I say to you "If you are against what any job has to offer, don't take that job"

Bruce_Currie wrote:

03/31/2014

And if Republicans had as much power here as they do in Texas, Planned Parenthood Clinics would be closing all over NH. Bully O'Brien tried his best.

RabbitNH wrote:

04/01/2014

Actually Bruce, you leave out the reasons why PP facilities are closing in many states, not just Texas.
Wide spread billing fraud, so much so that the GAO has started an investigation .PP in Texas just paid back 4.3 million for billing fraud of Medicaid.
Non reporting of child sex abuse.
Lack of physicians willing to perform abortions.
PPs that do not meet health and safety standards at their clinics.
Complications on the rise for botched abortions.
A young girl just died after being allowed to hemorage for 5 hours before being brought to the hospital.
Basically, PP has a lot of problems.
Easy to say it is Pro Lifers that are the reason.
But again, the facts tell another story.
But you lefties are not about facts. More about fear mongering. The War On Women.

tillie wrote:

04/01/2014

This post is full of right wing propaganda. For someone who scrams "facts" constantly this post is quite devoid of them.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/01/2014

Thank you Rabbit. PP was fraught with fraud and I forgot about the botched abortions. Progressives always use the scare tactics of "back alley" abortions but I see little difference.

tillie wrote:

04/01/2014

There is no doubt why the PP clinics closed in TX. Just goggle it, One sweet little ole Texas Republican was beside herself with her accomplishment, She just felt sooo sorry for all the poor people they put out of work. Don't know what your problem is, this is what you guys wanted isn't it? To control women and their reproductive habits? Why make up all these excuses why the clinics closed when it is so easily disproved. Rick Perry is just dancing with joy, but then he is a jerk anyway .No war on women? Republican actions prove other wise.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/01/2014

I put on my "goggles" and found this at television site KWTX: "SAN ANTONIO (March 25, 2014) Planned Parenthood says it will build a $5 million abortion clinic in San Antonio that meets all of the strict new abortion standards adopted last year by Texas lawmakers.
Planned Parenthood South Texas President and CEO Jeffrey Hons said at a fundraising event that the facility will follow new ambulatory surgical standards.
He said $3.5 million has been raised so far for construction"

tillie wrote:

04/02/2014

It is rude and condescending to correct someone's spelling, just ask your friend Rabbit.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

04/01/2014

Nonsense. Planned Parenthood clinics--along with other clinics serving women and low income families-- are closing because states like Texas and Wisconsin are slashing their support for health care for the poor, and added new requirements intended to make it harder for the clinics to survive. Claims that these clinics are not under deliberate assault by extremist,Tea Party legislatures ring hollow. An assault on women's reproductive rights--including access to contraceptives, is being waged by the right, in state legislatures and in the courts (Hobby Lobby). To even pretend to claim otherwise is to ignore reality --but that's a Carper speciality when the facts conflict with hard right ideology, as they increasingly do.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/01/2014

Bruce, it is not about an assault on women's reproductive rights but let me ask you a question, if abortion is between a woman and her doctor and you support that, why do you support the government getting in between other people and their doctor under Obamacare. I believe in a woman's right to do what she wants to with her body, I just don't want to pay for it if she chooses to have unplanned intercourse. You have the choice to NOT have intercourse or choose a myriad of protection, including 4 different birth control pills available at Wal-Mart for 30 cents per day. Why is it that progressives don't want the government involved in their bedrooms but every other aspect of individual freedom is free game?

RabbitNH wrote:

04/02/2014

Do you ever address anything that is said Bruce? I gave you reasons why PP are closing, yet you did not comment on any of those reasons. I did not even mention other reasons why some clinics are closing, for instance, they are closing clincs in rural areas because of lack of patients.
This has nothing to do with Reps. They do not run PP. You also dismissed the GAO investigation, and the safety and security standards measures put in place because of incidents at these clinics. And you also dismissed clinics accused of not reporting child sex abuse.
Why is it that you and your carpers never discuss what is said, instead you ignore those topics? Call them nonsense.
It is not just Texas, if it was you would have a solid argument, but several states are having issues with PP.
Your basically stating that these clinics should remain open even if they are unsafe, not being used and committing fraud with taxpayer money. Is that honest discussion? I think not.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

04/02/2014

One more time: clinics in several states, Texas foremost among them, are closing NOTbecause of any GAO investigation, which BTW is yet another scheme hatched by anti-abortion legislators aimed at defunding PP--it's nothing but a fishing expedition, they're closing because of deliberate actions taken by the state of Texas. The Republican-dominated Texas legislature has passed laws imposing new regulations on PP clinics there--one measure requires the clinics to be within 30 minutes of a hospital, and for a clinic's doctors to have admitting privileges. The legislature also has slashed funding for women's health care--forcing a number of clinics, not just PP ones, to close their doors. Your claims about the clinics being "unsafe, not being used, and committing fraud with taxpayer money" are allegations made by opponents. That doesn't make them facts. You should learn to tell the difference.

RabbitNH wrote:

04/02/2014

Wow, a clinic needs to be within 30 miles of a hospital. That's harsh Bruce.
The young lady who recently died in Chicago from a botched abortion could have been saved if that clinic did not let her bleed for 5 hours. Cost them 2 million in a settlement with her family.
She got to the hospital and they tried vainly to save her life without any info from the abortion Doc. She had several problems from that botched abortion. Basically the clinic let her die because they were not going to admit they screwed up and cost a life. A very sad story.

tillie wrote:

04/02/2014

It is a sad story, Where did you hear about it or is it a secret. Supposedly there are three million abortions a year according to Right to Life, so I am sure there is one death of a mother. As a matter of fact I wonder how many women die in childbirth being forced to have children they are not fit to bear.

GCarson wrote:

04/01/2014

OK itsa, I don't believe in paying farm subsidies to billionaires, or oil subsidies to the richest industry in the country. But I still do. You seem to have a convenient view of reality, the anti-abortion folks are also the ones that are against birth control. and then if it's not bad enough you have catholics. For a party that espouses getting government out of peoples lives, we sure want it to get involved with the anti-abortion stance. Make up your mined on what you want.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

04/01/2014

YOU don't pay subsidies, those are part of the tax law. "subsidies" makes it seem as if the government cuts oil companeis a check. That tax policy insures the security of energy supply, reducing dependence on foreign fuel, it keeps prices down and in economic times like this we need that, it makes jobs in the industry secure. Subsidies are used to reduce pollution, meet emission standards, etc. Government subsidizing abortion is something that democrats have told people for decades that they did not support and now in office they are fighting for it. No one is against birth control but it is not my responsibility to pay for anyone's good time. As far as abortion is concerned, it is a woman's right to choose to have one or not have one.....I think less of the woman for that choice or the man and woman if they make that choice together if it is only for convenience. It speaks to their lack of moral compass. In the case of rape and incest, that is a different story. But it is their choice.

Veritas wrote:

03/21/2014

Thanks for writing, and telling it like it is. My experience, being self-employed, is similar. I had to change doctors under Anthem's narrow network, which concerned me, but it worked out great. I am covered, and for a LOT less (even without a subsidy). And my mother's Medicare prescriptions are cheaper, and my 20-something son gets to stay on his mother's policy while he gets on his feet financially. Let's see if we can cut through all the fear-mongering and let people know how good this is and how much better off they will be.

rje49 wrote:

03/21/2014

Fear mongering? The fact is, in my case insurance rates would have doubled from what I was paying. On top of that, it would have covered less and had a higher deductible. I said "would have doubled" because I "just said NO". I simply couldn't afford it, at 40% of my income! So now I have no insurance. I'll hold out until I hit 65, pretty soon. I'd like to point out that I was neutral in my opinion of Obamacare- until I was presented the price! So it worked out ok for some. Lucky you; not me.

Field-of-Ferns wrote:

03/23/2014

So you're holding out for the single-payer system known as Medicare? Wouldn't it be fantastic if everyone could be on Medicare? If you're going to say No to Obamacare, I hope you will then say Yes to Medicare for All.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/24/2014

Medicare is for people who have worked 40-55 years and retire while all of their working lives, pay into a system which Democrats promised for decades would be there for them. These are the most vulerable people in our society, many of whom today, sacrificed through WWII, Korea and Vietnam and deserve to have those benefits. A person 30 years old does not need to be on "Medicare". Obamacare is not about affordability, it is about controlling people through their health care. Some Cancer patients have been left in the lurch so that others can feel the comfort of getting something for relatively nothing. Medicare for all would turn into the same thing education has......there would never be enough money. Moreover, you folks preach that a woman's choice is her own and between her and her doctor. Why not the same concern for individuals rights under Obamacare. I guess you are saying that woman can have that relationship with her doctor I guess if she can keep her doctor?

Patty wrote:

03/28/2014

Itsa wrote: "A person 30 years old does not need to be on 'Medicare.'"
Thirty-year-olds can be on Medicare if they: Suffer from ALS or permanent kidney disease (requiring a transplant or dialysis); are entitled to Social Security benefits for 24 months (non-consecutive); or if they receive pension from the Railroad Retirement Board (which is rare nowadays).
Source: http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-04-2011/medicare-eligibility.html

ItsaRepublic wrote:

03/28/2014

In those extreme cases, yes. Those folks need assistance. But every 30 year old does not need to be on Medicare. We don't need "Medicare for all" as others put it.

Field-of-Ferns wrote:

03/24/2014

I'm looking at your numbers again. You are saying that insurance would cost 40% of your income. Is that with or without the subsidy? Seems to me that if your income is that low, you would qualify for the subsidy. Insurance is expensive, but not THAT expensive.

Field-of-Ferns wrote:

03/24/2014

rje49 - I crunched numbers again. Let's say you chose a $500/month insurance package. That's $6000/year. That's 40% of 15000. That's right around the cutoff point for qualifying for expanded Medicaid. If you're under that income, you'll qualify for Medicaid next year. If you're over, you'll probably qualify for a sizeable subsidy. Bottom line - either you've greatly exaggerated the numbers, or you've left out the fact that you've purposefully decided not to use Obamacare in the way it was intended, so that you can say it's a failure.

Field-of-Ferns wrote:

03/24/2014

Even a $1000/month plan equates to a 30K income, and still qualifies you for a sizeable subsidy--------- Ok, I'll stop now. My point has been made.

GCarson wrote:

04/01/2014

Something is definitely fishy about your claim of 40%. The pricing guidelines of the ACA factor in a person's income in their premium. Obviously you didn't understand the process because there is no way I believe a word of what you're trying sell here. Recheck your figures - there is no way this is true.

RabbitNH wrote:

04/02/2014

The idea that the Dems should dictate that religions should change their tenets is pretty darn scary in my book. Did President Obama tell the Pope to dump his beliefs on BC and Abortions? Did he tell the Pope to sit in the back of the Bus?
Instead he did a photo op to put forth the fallacy that he actually respects the Pope, while attacking his tenets. Nice.
You folks are fond of telling folks, if you hate abortion do not get one.
I say to you, if you do not like what any company offers in regards to pay and benefits, do not work there. If enough folks shun companies they deem bad and do not work for them, that company will go out of business eventually. yet we hear from the left that folks have no choice. They have to take these jobs is their mantra. That is a straw man argument.
The govt needs to stay out of our lives, they cannot manage govt, let alone have the gall to dictate how you should run your life because they know better.
Basically your admitting to the fact that you have no control over your life, and the govt needs to step in and take control for you.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

04/03/2014

More nonsense--you're making things up. No one is asking people or institutions to "change their tenets". instead, Hobby Lobby and other corporations are asking to impose their religious beliefs on others--their employees. Beyond that, if you examine the recent history of the evangelical movement, their opposition to abortion is NOT a long-held "tenet". Before the 1980's, most evangelical organizations were supportive of or at least not opposed to, either abortion or contraception. The evangelicals have changed their tenets, and relatively recently--within a generation.